list_managed_aps

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the field list signals the shape of the response, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g. that a FortiGate with WiFi controller enabled is required), permission expectations, and any pagination or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is packed efficiently. The trailing API-path parenthetical borders on noise but is short enough not to hurt readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema, which is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool. Gaps are minor: no clarification of monitor-vs-config data source implications or the vdom scoping behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both device_id ('FortiGate device identifier') and vdom ('Virtual Domain') documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter usage—notably it never clarifies that the optional vdom scopes the listing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show managed FortiAPs') and enumerates the returned fields (status, IP, clients, firmware). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_ap_profiles (configuration profiles) and list_rogue_aps, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_rogue_aps or list_wifi_clients. The parenthetical API path (monitor/wifi/managed_ap) is an implementation detail, not usage guidance, so selection is left to inference from the resource name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.